Not Guilty
253 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
Also, what is the purpose of the permanent suppression order?
It can't be to protect evidence for a future trial, because there can never be one.
Is it to protect David Bain's reputation from evidence that couldn't be tested in court? If so, couldn't that be done by stripping privilege from the information so he could sue for libel if he wanted, but the mere publication wouldn't be contempt?
-
Damn straight they are one thing - they're perfectly legal. The offence of breach of suppression/breach of an order prohibiting publication occurs in the publishing of the material - in the media, or on the Internet. Having a copy doesn't amount to a breach; lending your copy to someone else isn't a breach, telling your mates or sending an email to your Mum isn't a breach, etc.
Right, so now the information is free (free! free, I tells ya!), a public library, for example, wouldn't be in breach of the order by sticking a notice in the window saying: 'come and look at the front page of The Herald for Sat June 6th 2009'. They didn't publish it, so they're alright?
-
Would you then want to hug the accused? And go to a party with him?
That did occur to me.
I would posit that the members of the jury greatly differed in their assessments. Some likely think David probably guilty, others that Robin is the more likely killer. All they had to do was agree that that there was reasonable doubt. It seems that they did.
It appears that the Herald has now removed its own story, having become aware that the Court of Appeal placed a permanent suppression order on the evidence.
I've been out of the country, and haven't been following this closely, but... the Court of Appeal has itself released three Bain judgments whose publication was prohibited:
The ruling on suppression was that:
... we prohibit publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the Internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial save that publication in a Law Report or Law Digest is permitted.
This is the standard form. I don't know, of course, whether there are other judgments that were suppressed differently.
-
They didn't publish it, so they're alright?
No. By making it available to the public they probably are publishing the material. But it would depend on the prohibition in the particular suppressed judgment. Just don't automatically think that publication in this sense is as broad as it is in defamation law.
-
Right, thankyou. That answers my question.
I wonder if public libraries (or similar) are thinking these issues through to this extent?
It would appear that The Herald has completely screwed the pooch on this one.
-
Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure I read someone from the prosecution team complaining that while they had to disclose everything to the defence, the defence could take months assemble its expert witnesses and only unveil them when they got to court ...
Yes. It's not a game, the police are supposed to find the truth before laying charges, and the defense are allowed to dig about and find any flaws in the telling of it before trial. If the police haven't found the defense's story themselves, they haven't investigated properly.
Thus, arrest on suspicion, charge on evidence, pre-trial to put forward a specific case for the prosecution of a crime, trial to test for a reasonable defense against that specific prosecution.
-
I get the feeling that none of you people have actually been on a jury. Hint - they are not made up of 12 PAS readers.
The main difference between Guilty 13 years ago and Not Guilty this time round was probably something as mundane as the advent of a dozen police procedure shows on TV in the interval. The subconscious thinking being that if a CSI techie can match a sample (of anything) to the suspect with about ten seconds of frantic keyboard tapping, then the NZ Police's failure to achieve the same is all the "reasonable doubt" you need. -
Hint -
Bear in mind that some may have also experienced just how inaccurate the police can be, so know they make mistakes.
-
I wonder if public libraries (or similar) are thinking these issues through to this extent?
I wonder if we really want public libraries -- which are having a tough enough time acting as our public memory banks -- should start pre-emptively vandalising newspapers for fear of litigation?
-
Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure I read someone from the prosecution team complaining that while they had to disclose everything to the defence, the defence could take months assemble its expert witnesses and only unveil them when they got to court ...
This changed with the Criminal Procedure Bill. One of the constituent components of that law was the Criminal Disclosure Act, which, in addition to re-stating the defence obligation to provide advance notice of an alibi, created an obligation for the defence to provide advance notice of evidence to be given by an expert witness.
Yes. It's not a game ... If the police haven't found the defense's story themselves, they haven't investigated properly.
One perhaps can't expect police to go to every expert to find out what all of them might say if called upon by the defence.
-
A statement from a soon to be convicted inmate. "I'm judged by those who can't get out of Jury Duty, these are not my peers"
-
I wonder if we really want public libraries -- which are having a tough enough time acting as our public memory banks -- should start pre-emptively vandalising newspapers for fear of litigation?
Well, yeah, that's kinda my point. Short answer: no, of course we don't. But what I was trying to establish last night was whether there was an issue or not, and it would appear that there potentially is.
By printing what they shouldn't have, The Herald has inadvertently created a pretty tangled situation for a lot of other unrelated public institutions (libraries were the first example that sprang to mind), which could cause massive headaches all round. Or alternatively, be quietly dropped, which more or less makes the suppression order a dead letter.
Nice work, APN.
-
Well, yeah, that's kinda my point. Short answer: no, of course we don't. But what I was trying to establish last night was whether there was an issue or not, and it would appear that there potentially is.
And fair enough too, I just doubt that libraries (most of whom aren't exactly extravagantly over-resourced) really want to be a de facto legal department because APN can't be arsed. They certainly don't have the money to be defending a test case, because a pissed off judge (?) decides her patience is exhausted and its time to make an example of someone.
-
A statement from a soon to be convicted inmate. "I'm judged by those who can't get out of Jury Duty, these are not my peers"
You may be surprised at the calibre of people who decide to give their time to jury duty. It's not all old people, the retired and the unemployed, y'know.
-
I've mentioned it on here before, but if anyone is interested in a first-hand account of serving on a jury, and the workings of a court through a criminal case, then I recommend 'the juryman's tale'.
I bottowed a copy from a local library here.
The conclusion that the author reached is that most people (contrary to what YV'ers seem to think) will take their duty extremely seriously, and do their utmost to reach a 'correct' legal conclusion.
-
Not even a little chuckle Jackie?
I think the Jury is the best system and still I do my best to avoid it. Even when I've turned up, that's when I wear the suit, silk tie & bling rings. I was told to dress up or down to avoid being picked as they preffer those dressed in shades of grey. In part because I'ld find it hard to send someone to prison, but there are plenty of other petty reasons too.
-
Even when I've turned up, that's when I wear the suit, silk tie & bling rings.
So that probably wasn't you in the beige safari suit and aryan-blonde obvious toupee, who appeared well pleased to be picked for jury service at the same session where I got rejected.
-
He'll have some extra glue on it today.
A mate of mine in his early 20s used to wear a toupee. Playing Rugby with head gear on, just to keep the locks down.
Thankfully a few boys started to shave their heads and he got the courage to bear it all. -
Right, so now the information is free (free! free, I tells ya!), a public library, for example, wouldn't be in breach of the order by sticking a notice in the window saying: 'come and look at the front page of The Herald for Sat June 6th 2009'. They didn't publish it, so they're alright?
Given that the Herald drops thousands of its papers in letterboxes every morning, the copies remaining in libraries are probably the lesser cock-up.
-
Given that the Herald drops thousands of its papers in letterboxes every morning, the copies remaining in libraries are probably the lesser cock-up.
Yes, that's a given. But all of those are now in private hands, which isn't a concern.
What I was getting at is that APN's cock-up has the potential to drag in a whole bunch of public archival-type institutions (e.g. libraries), who haven't actually done anything wrong, but who might get hit by the fall-out from APN's cock-up.
Like I said upthread: Good job, APN.
-
I bottowed a copy from a local library here.
I hope that isn't a reference to some form of unsavory smuggling.
-
It's a reference to 'I wish there was an edit button to undo my lame brain-dead typos'
-
I'd assumed any faith the jury had in CSI-style policing would have yeilded to the way none of the experts agreed on anything.
-
All together now.
Edit Button
Edit Button
Edit Button
Edit Button
Edit Button
Edit Button.
.
.
.
please -
please
It's coming and it might have been here sooner had one of our developers not been a rockstar in iPhone dev, and thus away at the Apple WWDC.
Meanwhile ... I heard something about evidence that didn't get to the jury that I still struggle to believe. But from a pretty good source ...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.